Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The Constitution Dies Tomorrow
theseminal.com — Over 200 years ago, we enshrined the rule of law as the only monarch in America. Tomorrow, the Senate will likely vote to shred that precedent. Democrats, "compromising" with Republicans, will act together, in a bipartisan fashion, to destroy your right to be free from search without a warrant.
mareacaspica- 14584 diggs
- digg it
- Cadenzah, on 07/08/2008, -26/+1430If there's one thing history has shown us, it's that the governments (or rather the people in charge of the governments) strive to suppress the people as much as they can, it's in their own self-interest to do so... and if you think today is any different .. well, it's time to wake up.
stripping the government of its powers and reducing its size should be everyone's number one priority, our 'golden age' has lasted for a few centures, but may as well be over soon.- MorganMghee, on 07/08/2008, -39/+158I'm sorry, I can't agree. Those aren't aliens from another planet sitting in our congress, they are people we lazily voted into office without knowing anything else about them except what the media showed us. We have a near perfect set of rules, and all it takes to make it work is a little attention. Several hours a week to learn about the issues, learn about the people and choose the right lot to get things done, by majority vote. Attend your city council meetings, vote on your local issues. If half the people don't vote, 1/4 votes but doesn't know what or who the hell they are voting for, another 1/8 thinks they know because they trust the media, well that doesn't leave very many informed voters. People in our government should be the people from our cities and towns, people we have found honest, hard working and loyal but also smart people, informed people. We all know who they are, consider the people you work with. Some don't do their work at all, phoning it in. Some have great work ethic and try very hard and accomplish a lot. But then there are those few, those ones that stand out. They are hard to find, harder to convince especially considering the atmosphere in government today. No, there is simply no one else to blame here but ourselves. Fortunately, we drew up that fabulous document, that says even though we seat a government, we are still in charge. There are methods built into our laws that allow us to correct our errors. We simply need to take the time, set everything else aside, everything else is off the table!
- BoonTobias, on 07/08/2008, -21/+195it is not easy when the majority of the people have been misguided for so long, look at what the past 8 years have done to our country, who would've thought that the U.S. would be in this ***** so soon?
Our foods = FAIL
Our cars = FAIL
Foreign Policy = FAIL
Healthcare = FAIL
Religious view = FAIL
Average person's knowledge = FAIL
We debate over evolution (EPIC FAIL), abortion, gay marriage. Our country's vision is headed in a scary direction because Stupidity, pride and greed have overpowered honesty and rationality. - motivatedmama, on 07/09/2008, -2/+23Here's one of those people who stand out:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rendered_Jobless ...
A Navy Vet, activist and mother who's had enough. They are out there just waiting for people to take notice and VOTE! - writer512, on 07/09/2008, -1/+46Is it any wonder that congress has an approval rating of 9%?
- dougmc, on 07/09/2008, -14/+8A near perfect set of rules? Are you referring to the Constitution?
If so, the Constitution isn't perfect (or even near to it), but it's better than what we have now. - peaceninja, on 07/09/2008, -2/+40it would be nice if we had more vacation days to use so we can be more participatory in our government. remind me again why we dont have a national holiday for every november election?
- TJRoger, on 07/09/2008, -20/+5America begins to remind me of a certain movie...what was the name again?
I think it starts with a V...
Give it a few years, it has been predicted that America would fall. No government system is perfect.
There are two possibilities here:
Rebellion
Nuclear war (induced by pissing off Iran and pretty much every other middle eastern nation) - 5urr3al5am, on 07/09/2008, -10/+7@TJRoger -- you're a jackass.. are you one of the people that said that back in 2000?
- Yarmin3, on 07/09/2008, -4/+17The structure of our government is inherently flawed. You can vote the right people in but there are too many diversified interests to make any cohesive, meaningful change at the centralized federal level of government. Everyone can be informed, but everyone's version of the "right" people is very different. Our election system is too reliant on campaign donations resulting in a quid pro quot relationship with big business.
We need to reestablish states' sovereignty, so meaningful legislation can pass that serves each state's interests better, and instead of special interests influencing a couple Senators to pass favorable legislation that hurts the people, they would have to influence multiple senators and/or congress members across 50 states to have the same influence.
P.S. The constitution, as the Founding Fathers knew it, has already been dead since 1861. - xatx2, on 07/09/2008, -12/+5you missed
LIBERTY = FAIL - cubicledrone, on 07/09/2008, -6/+4The reason we don't have a national holiday for elections is because unfortunately and inexplicably, liberty and freedom do not apply to the workplace.
- LeeSoong, on 07/09/2008, -3/+8@ BoonTobias :
The on going debate of science, rights, etc - is good.
It pulls foolish notions into a harsh light, promotes questioning,
and challenges assumptions held by many with the objective observable facts.
One example was the guy who tried to force ''intelligent design'' books into schools. Police research exposed a conspiracy, inaccuracies, and fundamental false logic and possible outright fraud.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
It seems a person who 'wanted to do what is good' believed he was entitled to do bad to achieve good ends. Here is a failing of ethics so fundamental that it does not even rise to the level of religious dogma.
The same basic failings in philosophy, ethics, and logic is found at the root of wrong actions and these critical thinking and discernment skills need taught anew to each generation of humans... - ageofanxiety, on 07/09/2008, -4/+12Sorry but you don't understand human psychology. One of the greatest philosophers of our time "Alan Watts" said "I always vote and not one time in all my life has one of my votes won."
It's human psychology to vote for the most popular candidate because of how we are socialized. If we don't follow the sheep and become a sheep, we lose our popularity, our narcissism or ego. Sad but true. - sporg, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12MorganMghee and quite a few others here apparently still believe that elected officials are the ones running this country. How amusing.
- humperdeath, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Well said, Morgan!. All you diggers are quick to vote here, online where it is easy, but really doesn't mean anything. If you all applied your energies where it counted, GET OUT AND VOTE, but do it carefully, do not just read the hype. Remember these words: 'If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" think about it, do it.
- p0ss, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4a near perfect system?
Representative democracy will never work properly, because:
a)the views and priorities of one individual will never exactly match those of another individual
b) the views and priorities of one individual will never exactly match those of a group of individuals
c) the views and priorities of one indivdual are easily swayed by the offer of personal gain
What is required is direct democracy. For direct democracy to work we require:
i) good and unbiased schooling
ii) good and unbiased media.
iii) an uncorruptable voting system
none of those things are in the interest of the various lobby groups which is why we dont have them.
For my money there were three momentous mistakes that led us to this point:
1) Allowing fractional reserve banking.
2) Allowing a privatised central bank
3) Giving corporate entities the rights of an individual.
With these three things in place, we have created monstrous entites that stradle our economies growing forever fat off the labour of our endebted servitude. These beings have been created as selfish, malicious and gluttonous titans formed with no moral or ethical restrictions. We have created our own overlords, formed in the image of our sins and given none of our virtues. Government is hog tied, it can't make its own money, so it is forced to borrow what it needs just like the rest of us. As long as this situation coninues, no form of government can be free, fair or democratic. - reaperhatch, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Then what is the first step for an average American, like me, to get involved in government? Or at least become a little more aware of wtf is going on.
to be honest when i watch, read or hear something that makes me angry at the government I usualy just watch read or get a little more info on the subject. Then I am distracted by my job, bills, drama at home...
forget this. I am just going to hit "save reply," go fap then probly play some video games then sleep.
- BoonTobias, on 07/08/2008, -21/+195it is not easy when the majority of the people have been misguided for so long, look at what the past 8 years have done to our country, who would've thought that the U.S. would be in this ***** so soon?
- DrDreyfus, on 07/08/2008, -86/+12"stripping the government of its powers and reducing its size should be everyone's number one priority, our 'golden age' has lasted for a few centures, but may as well be over soon."
Wrong.
We should be working towards a future where government isn't necessary.
Unfortunately we have people like you (immature unthinking ultra-idealists) and we have people like those in Al-Quaida (unthinking ultra-radical murderers).
In our current stage of moral development we would be ***** as a global society if we took away government. Remember New Orleans right after the hurricane hit? Rampant theft and senseless murder.
Go peddle your childish ideas somewhere else.- relic180, on 07/08/2008, -19/+46Sling some mud. Sling a little more. All done? Good, now shut the ***** up you deconstructive ***** sucker.
- Golubrubrugh, on 07/08/2008, -11/+14Wow, you realize that you just explained the core idea of communist belief?
- clarionhaze, on 07/09/2008, -12/+19That is not the core idea of communist belief. Working for a future with no government is about as idealist as it gets but why bury the guy for discussion and digg the guy who simply calls him a ***** sucker?
- relic180, on 07/09/2008, -8/+27Because you don't loosely equate somebody to al-quaida, and then dismiss their idea as childish if you're trying to contribute to a discussion.
- yournightmare, on 07/09/2008, -1/+26relic180, DrDreyfus didn't "loosely equate" anybody to Al-Qaeda. He was talking specifically about Al-Qaeda and others like them. But he did call someone a childish, immature, unthinking ultra-idealist right after he proposed that we should be working towards a future with no government. And if saying we should be working towards a future with no government doesn't epitomize unthinking ultra-idealism, then surely nothing does.
- HonestAbe, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8"We should be working towards a future where government isn't necessary. ... immature unthinking ultra-idealists"
- PeppermintPig, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6I agree with relic180. There are ways to make a point about dissolving government without being a complete dick about it.
And no, Golubrubrugh, that's not communism. - clarionhaze, on 07/09/2008, -4/+9yeah without being a complete dick, like calling someone a ***** sucker..?
- DrDreyfus, on 07/09/2008, -9/+4@relic
Did you even read my response before making your strikingly aggressive comment?
I guess it's pretty easy to put somebody down without actually hazarding a consideration of their statement.
and @Golubrubrugh
I think you should open up a history book. Marxism is NOT what I was proposing nor is it entirely similar. Read Civil Disobedience if you want to understand my point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(T ... - relic180, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8@Dreyfus
I did read it. I try not to make a habit of replying to posts that I've yet to read. And my reply had nothing to do with you're disagreement with Cadenza's conclusion.
What I was replying to was your apparent assumption that because his conclusion that we should work toward a smaller government, differed from your position enough that you (not so subtlety) put him in very close ideological proximity to members of al-queda. In my book that moves you squarely into the '*****-sucker' category.
Similar to throwing "Nazi" around at anybody who doesn't share your own ideological stance, it's not ok.
"I guess it's pretty easy to put somebody down without actually hazarding a consideration of their statement."
If that doesn't reek of pretentious snobbery, then holy ***** I don't know what does. Are you implying that your mudslinging comment above is a dangerous new way of thinking that might shift my world model into an unrecoverable downward spiral from which my delicate notions of reality would be shattered? Or are you just being a dick again? - DrDreyfus, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2@relic
"Unfortunately we have people like you (immature unthinking ultra-idealists) AND we have PEOPLE LIKE THOSE in Al-Quaida (unthinking ultra-radical murderers)."
I don't see in here where I compared him to being an Al-Quaida member.
"Similar to throwing "Nazi" around at anybody who doesn't share your own ideological stance, it's not ok."
I agree.
"If that doesn't reek of pretentious snobbery, then holy ***** I don't know what does. Are you implying that your mudslinging comment above is a dangerous new way of thinking that might shift my world model into an unrecoverable downward spiral from which my delicate notions of reality would be shattered? Or are you just being a dick again?"
You claim that I compared him to an Al-Qaida member.
I did not make any such claim.
Calling you out on not taking the time to parse the syntax of my statement and gleam from it the meaning intended, is not "being a dick again".
and @yournightmare
This idea of working toward a level of global morality where government isn't necessary isn't an that of an ultra-idealist. It's from Henry Thorough's Civil Disobedience and is fleshed out quite well.
Better than say a plan to strip the government of it's powers as soon as possible without consideration of the global moral, economic and social climate.
That's anarchy which, I guess on paper sounds really cool, but in reality doesn't provide stop rampant murder or theft.
- apextek, on 07/09/2008, -5/+36how to we strip the law makers of their power when after we elect them, they approve laws that take more away from the people?
- billbugger, on 07/09/2008, -7/+26impeachment
- hollering, on 07/09/2008, -0/+26When you're fighting for such seemingly small increases in power, people look at you as if you're a nut job. Yet when they look up and find that we've relinquished all power to the government, they wonder how it happened.
- doubledoh, on 07/09/2008, -4/+10By electing libertarians and not tyrannical pro-big government dictators.
- Vincent21212, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Impeachment, my ass. You ***** gather your 'buddies' and take the Capitol. I promise, if this ***** keeps up, in the next 20 years we might see the most blood shed by traitorous Senators in one sitting.
Theres another factor besides being ill-informed here, and that's deception. It's a lot harder to sniff that out. Just look at my dear friend Barack O. I wasted my time and energy on that guy. - freddiep, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2first of all, by learning how to speak english...
- specialK16, on 07/09/2008, -5/+102The people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people.
(ignore the anon V for Vendetta ***** please).
I am sorry, but this will soon get out of hand, and not only in the US. You will come to realize that peaceful methods of protest won't work anymore since they will be considered hostile and unpatriotic. Even as Gandhi, you will be considered a threat, and be sent to jail and tortured/raped/killed. You will have to comply with everything they say, you will have to play by their rules if you want to live happy. They will succeed in taking any motivation to protest, and you will resign yourself to live the way they want you to. You will live like a robot and you will get comfortable, you will set yourself to ignore every sign abuse. You will be afraid, but in denial, and you will finally say, even if you don't mean, you will say: "They protect me".
You can ask everyone to do something, you can tell everyone to call their respective congressman, to send letters. Go ahead and print this and post it everywhere you can, show it to your friends, coworkers, etc. But in the end you have to realize that this method of fighting is obsolete. They are too powerful. They made us afraid of terrorism, they will only understand by terrorism from us.
Go ahead, arrest me now.- Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -10/+26I saw this coming a mile away and left the country two days before Bush's first term. I'm fairly certain the US government can't get to me where I am.
- Vesuvias, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10This is so true... and the naysayers that call this 'conspiracy' will be those that follow without a second thought... my realizations are that only one thing can combat this madness, faith in something deeper... doesn't matter what this is, just something with more meaning then the bs they stuff in our faces...
- HonestAbe, on 07/09/2008, -5/+19"I saw this coming a mile away and left the country two days before Bush's first term. I'm fairly certain the US government can't get to me where I am."
You also can't vote against him. Thanks a lot. - joeanon, on 07/09/2008, -4/+28The people ARE the government.
Neither should fear each other.
That's the great flaw and it shows how media and wealth has effectively helped divide the people from the government.
By rejecting your government you ultimately make wealthy people more powerful, and they like that.
As they say... divided we fall.
What if the division is created purposely by a third party that isn't the people or the government ?
Then you would be playing right into their hands.
It's the wealthy you manipulate the government, who push huge contracts, who control the corporations the run your lives and set prices for world commodities. They own you and you blame government.
Our broken government is a symptom, not the cause of a greater corruption.
When the wealth gap grows too fast, the democracy losses equality. There can be no other realistic outcome. You cannot deny money is power. So why deny you a controlled by the wealthy ?
It's the wealthy who have chosen not to invest in renewable energy.
It's the wealthy who make the greatest profit margins on your medical woes.
It's the wealthy who buy up real estate and drive the cost of housing through the roof.
It's the wealthy running the banks who you just bailed out.
Do you see a pattern here ?
Not all people fear the government... just the working class.
The rich use the government and get paid they don't fear it.
You act as though the people are all one mass of agreeable consent, but they are not.
The few benefit while the masses suffer and clearly they are proving who really has the power. - 5urr3al5am, on 07/09/2008, -13/+2@specialK16
You sound lazy to me? If things are so bad, do something about it other than sit on your ass and type into a glorified blog site - Kanele, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5at the risk of repeating myself over different digg pages and getting dugg down again.... Revolutions are always violent
- ReneRuizJ, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6"They made us afraid of terrorism, they will only understand by terrorism from us."
I'm sure when you said 'terrorism' you really meant 'revoluton.' - dagnome1984, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Whatever you do don't move to England. That government is starting to take notes from the U.S.
- msimeth, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2England is ahead of the US. They don't even have a constitution to kill.
- 0nslaught, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1
I'll have to take Thomas Jefferson's side on this: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- DanBoodro, on 07/09/2008, -1/+38"Insert Historical Quote Here"
As a young American myself, the one thing that I'm afraid of is the kids growing up now. They see this kind of behavior from the government and think that this is how things are and how problems are dealt with. They're gonna grow up and have that imprinted in their minds.
It's our civil duties as the present teenagers/young adults/middle age citizens of the USA, to turn this around and fight for what this country was born from. Freedom and prosperity. Right now, we're losing both more and more with each new law passed, each new amendment to the constitution, each president voted into office, and each and every hard earned tax dollar that we give to keep this uncivil country running.
We need to take a stand as citizens of the most powerful country in the world. It's our future, not theirs.- makenshin, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10I honestly think that long in the past of this country, being president did not require that much work to be seen as doing a good job (not that there weren't those who worked to do bad), as the government was not that large. Nowdays, the government has grown to such a large size that it is nearly impossible to do a good job. I doubt there is anyone left alive who remembers what those days were like.
It is time to shrink the government down and return many of the liberties granted by the Constitution of America to the people, so our children can grow up free.
- makenshin, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10I honestly think that long in the past of this country, being president did not require that much work to be seen as doing a good job (not that there weren't those who worked to do bad), as the government was not that large. Nowdays, the government has grown to such a large size that it is nearly impossible to do a good job. I doubt there is anyone left alive who remembers what those days were like.
- makenshin, on 07/09/2008, -0/+12I have to say, I think it may be time for a group spanning the nation to be organized specifically for the public political castration of all who have supported FISA and appear to still help take away our freedoms after all the Bush administration has already done, through impeachment of congress members.
- joeanon, on 07/09/2008, -4/+36Maybe the real problem is that people strive to oppress each other and that no form of government can ever be immune to the simple flaws of human character such as greed and a desire for power over others.
That's why capitalism works... mostly.. because humans naturally desire more than they need.
To appoint humans and expect them to run government without human nature getting in the way is really the flaw of the democracy.
We the people are too lazy to provide oversight and that's the real problem.
It doesn't matter how big or small your government is... because government corruption is an extension of human corruption not a phenomenon encompassed only within government.
The entire concept of democracy relies on people rising up to higher moral considerations and looking at the big picture of shared liability that is civilization.
Under that Union we work together and see nation building relies on cooperation, but as individuals and with the flaws of human nature we reject the idea of supporting others as a means of supporting ourselves.
If you limit government, you will not limit corruption, you will just displace it somewhere else. Money is money and greed is greed.
The only flaw of government is putting so much money in one spot, but corporations have much more money and as they consolidate they wield sums of similar power to our entire government.
The government taxes for about 2-3 trillion a year, but the GNP is around 13.3 trillion.
We pay 2.1 trillion for health care alone the vast majority from employers and out of pocket with 600b from government.
In the BIG picture corporations work in parallel to corner markets and set prices as high as they can and they make much more money than the government.
The government on the other hand works profit free while corporations strive for the highest profit. There is the advantage of nationalized services, it's non profit vs highest profit margin possible.
Corruption is human nature, and humans run government and corporations.
One of the pinnacles of government is checks and balances to limit corruption on all levels, but the people are the final check and they simple refuse to due their jobs. Instead they are memorized by the consolidated mass media which has formed in the last 30 years, basically eating up freedom of press.
As JFK said... we did not set aside the First Amendment for Freedom of Press merely for the sake of entertainment.
They have a responsibility to provide honest and reliable news and the public has the responsibility to put their foot up the press's ass when they step out of line.
Media consolidation is the greatest threat to national security because it undermines the First Amendment and the public's main information source.
Form that point of controlling information you can do anything.
It's the people above all who are not doing their job.
And I believe it will take a full blown depression to wake them up, though only for a short time which serves their immediate interests upon which time we will return to apathy and decline of individual rights... not via government, but via wealth in general, which clearly controls most of the US government.
The wealthy are motivated, while the masses are apathetic. This is the same aristocracy we fled from centuries ago, but with fancy corporate logos and even more wealth.
It's up to the people to resit the power of the wealthy elite and not allow media consolidation or medical price gouging or complete ignorance in energy policy.
Look around you... the people of America are seemingly idiots being herded by the media while their leaders preach hope and deliver very little.
We have ALL the power and we exercise almost none of it.
If you blame government, take a step back and realize the government is empowered by the people, for the people.
Through indirect logic that means the people are truly to blame for doing so little in the face of corporate consolidation and a ever growing wealth gap.
The historical solution is civil unrest, revolution and potentially national collapse. In a democracy we have the right to assemble, but we fail to use it well and we allow unjust regulation of our right to assemble, which constitutionally cannot be regulated.
Checks against government power cannot be regulated by the government, but we have allow that to happen, along with domestic spying and torture.
All my education and preaching amounts to nothing compared to one sound byte of the mass media. Their wealth means they can endlessly repeat a message until the public buys into it. Before mass consolidation it was much harder for the media to chose such simplistic stances and push such narrow minded views without losing ratings to other more sincere media outlets.
Following World War 2.. we didn't ONLY steal German technology, we also realized the effectiveness of full blown media propaganda and then came the RED SCARE and cold war. Certainly with major pushes from the pentagon to USE media to present a viewpoint.
The media should not have an opinion it should be unbiased but these days it's all about ratings, not truth. If the truth doesn't sell as well as sensational journalism, then it gets shelved.- BeforeSputnik, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2a little long, but good.
- noisey, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3One of the best posts I've seen on Digg.
- americajones, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1If you haven't read Robert W. McChesney's "Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy" you'd get a lot out of it. It's from 1996 I think, but the issues it discusses are quite relevant (particularly the discussion of oligopoly).
- scamper22, on 07/09/2008, -2/+12Let's correct that for you:
"If there's one thing history has shown us, it's that the PEOPLE strive to suppress EACH OTHER as much as they can, it's in their own self-interest to do so... and if you think today is any different .. well, it's time to wake up.
"
The government merely represents our interests. You can deny it if you want and think it's some secret society up there. Yet, there are significant numbers of people who:
-who want abortion banned
-who are so concerned about security they want some agency to have the power to listen in on you.
-who want to enforce their philosophy to indoctrinate your kids in public school
-who don't like the idea of marijuana, and want to make sure you don't have access to it.
...
It is the public that sucks! Never forget that.
WE like the government and support the government when it does what WE want. However, we always forget...we always forget... there will come a time when WE are not the majority and some other group will use the government for purposes we don't like. That doesn't matter what group you belong to. Democract/republican/green party. It doesn't matter.
Today people like to support spending billions on green energy and government programs and entitlements. They expand the government's ability to raise more money and provide more services. In short, they like the big role government plays... They'll cheer it all now.
Then when some war monger gets to office and uses all the money that state is able to raise to bomb countries, they are somehow surprised? When it decides to spend billions on prisons and a war on drugs they are are surprised?
Government should not be used to get you want. The constitution dies because WE THE PEOPLE KILLED IT. WE WANT TO TRAMPLE on the rights of our fellow citizens. It would have been nice if the government was there to stop us from shooting ourselves in the foot... but we're human.
It should be used to protect you from your fellow citizens.- ageofanxiety, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Very good and true. It goes counter to ones best thinking. I'm reading some books written by narcissism guru's and basically we want wire taping and other forms of police state because we don't trust our neighbor and believe it's in our own best interest. Then we THINK these laws don't apply to us. That's the catch, we run stop lights become that's for the other guy. The speed limit is for the other guy. It's weird, very weird human psychology is.
- flameboy, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3No no no!
It's not the people's fault.
Ever since Nixon (possibly before) the executive branch has begun to see it as part of their job to "convince" the American people that their way is correct. The administration doesn't worry about what's good for America, they make their decision based on any number of other factors, and then persuade America later. This is the "permanent campaign" mentality that Scott McClellan speaks about in his book against the Bush administration.
Many many people are perfectly capable of understanding that you cannot trade liberty for security, but they will never understand that message because there are so many powerful persuading messages blocking that view. I mean you look at FOX News that is just an unbelievable abomination to America and how popular it was (and sadly still is), and you realize that there are some very calculating and coordinated forces behind the lies we are told as a nation.
This isn't just "people are divided". This is warfare. Division amongst Americans in certain key areas doesn't just "happen", but rather it is *caused* by powerful interests in this country. - HonestAbe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2My "liberal" coworker: "I don't know about you, but when I see police in the train stations and airports with machine guns, it makes me feel safe. At least someone's looking out for me!"
"The government" is just people, and people are stupid. That's the fundamental problem.
- bross29, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Our age of prosperity really has only lasted since the end of WWII.
- scamper22, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8not sure why you got dugg down.
People have a very very very very very short memory.
Talk to leftists, and its like their history only goes back to post WWII until the 1990s. Oh the glorious time that was of big unions and big entitlements... none of which were paid for of course. And massive debt and deficits came with it.
Talk to conservatives and you'd think drugs and sex were just invented since the 1960s.
We're still living on a bubble created by a huge population boom (baby boomers, remnants of the success of colonialism and western supremecy, and an expansion of trade). All these things are coming to and end... and with it... our prosperity.
Is it all doom and gloom :P Not really. But I think we'll be going back to a much simpler way of life. If not, fighting to maintain our prosperity will only make us worse off.
- scamper22, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8not sure why you got dugg down.
- nontoxyc, on 07/09/2008, -0/+14The time to protest has come. I'm going to the DNC to protest Obama's FISA support--then I'm going to the RNC to protest McCain's warmongering--then Im' going to DC to protest the whole damn out of control thing. I'm just going to wait in DC until other people start to join me. Could be years ;)
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Join us at the White House every Saturday afternoon
http://yellowcakewalk.net
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Join us at the White House every Saturday afternoon
- jennicamorel, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Our golden age has lasted for about 50 years
Unless of course you count slavery, civil war, world wars, stark economic depression, and Ang Lee's Hulk- elhaf, on 07/09/2008, -2/+14We never had a golden age, and couldn't get one in the first place given the circumstances. The south wouldn't cave on slavery and as a result we have never been free and never will be. The declaration of independence would have died on the vine if not for the consent of the south. Then, once enshrined in the constitution, it took a war between the states vs. the federal government (not north vs. south as it is portrayed now) to overcome this problem. Finally, the federal government won, and has grown unchecked ever since. In this administration, the three-branched government with checks and balances has finally been laid to rest, and the president is once again king, with one law for him and another for us. If you think states have rights, think about the fact that a person with a medical prescription for marijuana grew his own on his own land and used it himself, and was subject to federal laws which were upheld by the supreme court, despite the fact that the federal government is only supposed to regulate interstate commerce. Tell me how any of that had to do with interstate commerce?
- yossariantwin, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8mirror: http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files//2008/07/wp ...
- Nosferotu, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5I'm not quite as cynical as you seem to be about this, but I do think it's important that Americans remember Rome, which was around for much longer than America has been, did fall. To believe America is going to go on in it's current state indefinitely into the future is absurd.
The problem seems to be the balance between human self-interest of the present day population vs. the understanding of the philosophy behind the government, and the importance of that philosophy. It seems today our population is caught up in this fear of the unknown, and so stressed about keeping the present day population alive, that they're rapidly undercutting the philosophy of the system. Unfortunately, when it comes to making decisions about how a government should be run, it has to be done with more focus on the philosophy than the current population. It's more important that our government focus on keeping the society alive for the future than that we keep the current population alive for the present... if that makes sense. It's the balance between security and liberty, assuming (as many people do these days) that the two are opposites on a sliding scale.
There's an interesting blog post about this exact topic here:
http://johnnygphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/04/addr ... - N01SE, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4Boy, Digg sure has become a haven for people to spread propaganda of all kinds. Let's use some reasoning and logic here. First off, you should read the bill; note the definitions at the top of the bill which define the terms used. Saying the bill would even apply to any U.S. citizen is a stretch given the definitions of foreign entities which the bill applies to, unless you are literally involved in acts of treason with foreign governments. Also remember, it is one thing to have the power, it is another thing entirely to abuse that power, it amazes me that people read this and automatically think the government will be breaking down your door to steal your pot stash. It's propaganda, people love riling others up and scaring them into their beliefs. Yes, we have lots of reasons to resent our government for it's failures, but use reason and logic to argue not propaganda. Also, the Attorney General would still have to show or have obtained evidence to support probable cause for a search (the means is another issue entirely), it doesn't help that the Constitution itself is so ambiguously worded: 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Okay, so what is considered a REASONABLE search. The Constitution, although representing the core freedoms of U.S. Citizens could even support what most would consider "unconstitutional" due to its terrible wording. Don't fall victim to blatant propaganda of any kind, it takes a lot of effort to really understand issues through and through, it's never as simple as reading a single article, comment, or blog to get all the information necessary to pass educated judgments. For all you freedom fighters, get into politics, you would be better off helping us out there than on a blog.
- americajones, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4The big problem here is that the immunity provision prevents the legal discovery process in some 40 court cases; the immunity provisions are downright Kafka-esque: the telcos don't need immunity unless they broke a law, but immunity prevents any formal determination of potential wrongdoing. Beyond the fact that this represents Congress overstepping its bounds by interfering with the courts, there is the historical problem that this legitimizes some of Bush's most Nixon-like behavior, which compelled Congress to pass FISA in the first place.
- Husky217, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Why in the world would we want to leave room for abuse when every government in the history of the world has shown corruption? Forget the gov coming into your home for your drugs, and think about the exec branch spying on congress, on the media, on investigators, on reporters. Those people with the ability to combat corruption and keep the corrupt in check could easily by extorted and blackmailed by a corrupt president. They could be forced to vote as the president says, despite what they or the people want. The media and whistle blowers could be censored.
The gov could spy on me and find nothing wrong, but yet it's still reasonable and logical for me to worry about the effect this will have b/c of what's stated above.
- TheInformer, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11Reducing the size of government won't happen as long as the entitlement programs exist.
- STPZ, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10FISA Passed at approximately 2:05 ET with a vote of 69-28
- Loaferz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4good night sweet prince. 1776-2008
- Plant11, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Very true, but please, everybody, whenever you state some big political/historical revelation, stop telling us to "wake up". Its kinda insulting.
- nickert0n, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7You guys can bury me, call me crazy but it is time to fight, people unite
If you care, then educate yourselves, you may not agree on all points but the end result is clear.
A revolution is required.
Watch these movie's and choose what to do, continue to be raped or stand on your feet and take back whats rightfully yours. It wouldent take much, it is possible watch.
Zeitgeist (My favorite, in short it has 3 portions of the movie in which all tie nicely together. Control via religon, lies about 9/11, and the wonderfull world of the people who really own you Central Bankers, never heard of them? LEARN.)
http://digg.com/world_news/Zeitgeist_A_movie_all_A ...
Freedom to Facism(This one shows how the currency you use is taxing free labor one day a week from you, even Ron Paul himself confirms these facts within this documentary)
http://digg.com/world_news/America_Freedom_to_faci ...
Hacking Democracy(This one demonstrates it does not matter who you vote for)
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=234
The War on Democracy(Watch this one to see that it is possible to rise against a corrupt government and replace them with your barehands.)
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=171 - loggedout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4The Articles of Confederation were the last attempt to suppress government power. That was quite a failure.
- 3amboo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!
- Devotia, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2 We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Henry trumps Wallace.
- Devotia, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2 We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
- vidar808, on 07/09/2008, -0/+12Donate to the ACLU. They are suing!
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080 ... - oscillations, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0holy *****!!1
- PURPLEDRINK, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1awsome, thinks for the ron paul/liberalist party slant about reducing government size.
- neosinn, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1sure, but do you really think the American people will return to the Bible? I mean real hardcore bible study?
I don't think so, i believe this country will be destroyed before at/near the rapture anyway. Just looking at how this country has so badly turned against God we can expect God to start removing his hand of protection. - wiggs08, on 07/10/2008, -1/+12012 end of society, coming up
- Ismith988, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I just gave him the 1337th digg Woot!
- Gforce20, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1This feels like a Reddit comment thread.
- Navigator7, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1The Dog Whisperer for President:
http://forum.concretepumpingadvice.com/topic.asp?T ...
- MorganMghee, on 07/08/2008, -39/+158I'm sorry, I can't agree. Those aren't aliens from another planet sitting in our congress, they are people we lazily voted into office without knowing anything else about them except what the media showed us. We have a near perfect set of rules, and all it takes to make it work is a little attention. Several hours a week to learn about the issues, learn about the people and choose the right lot to get things done, by majority vote. Attend your city council meetings, vote on your local issues. If half the people don't vote, 1/4 votes but doesn't know what or who the hell they are voting for, another 1/8 thinks they know because they trust the media, well that doesn't leave very many informed voters. People in our government should be the people from our cities and towns, people we have found honest, hard working and loyal but also smart people, informed people. We all know who they are, consider the people you work with. Some don't do their work at all, phoning it in. Some have great work ethic and try very hard and accomplish a lot. But then there are those few, those ones that stand out. They are hard to find, harder to convince especially considering the atmosphere in government today. No, there is simply no one else to blame here but ourselves. Fortunately, we drew up that fabulous document, that says even though we seat a government, we are still in charge. There are methods built into our laws that allow us to correct our errors. We simply need to take the time, set everything else aside, everything else is off the table!
- dave122, on 07/08/2008, -25/+2097"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Ben Franklin
We can't say they didn't warn us.... But hey the constitution is just a piece of paper right?- Spudster, on 07/09/2008, -91/+4*and created by a bunch of slave owning white men in the days before electricity or mass communication.
- etherreal, on 07/09/2008, -2/+73Does not make the words less true.
- NikoKun, on 07/09/2008, -2/+25If you'd read history, you'd know they tried to put anti-slavery clauses in the constitution... But some of the states wouldn't have supported it then.
Most of them knew how wrong slavery was, but the independence of our country was more important at the time. If I remember correctly, a few of them even released their slaves upon independence. - republicker, on 07/09/2008, -1/+27You should consider yourself lucky because the constitution is the only thing standing between you and sterilization.
- diggThis77, on 07/09/2008, -0/+14....and it's the consitution that allow's you to say this without the govt. coming for you...
- Spudster, on 07/09/2008, -16/+2Face the truth people, radically following the interpretation of the constitution is stupid. Our values should not come from a radical interpretation of the constitution but instead a rational view of how life exists today.
It is from this ridiculous constitutional originalist point of view of justices like Antonia Scalia that have our Supreme Court uphold unjust laws because the constitution doesn't *strictly* outlaw them. - etherreal, on 07/09/2008, -0/+15@Spudster: This is why there is the Amendment process to the Constitution. If things change, amend the law of the land to reflect the will of the people. Do not just pretend the law does not exist.
- Spudster, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4The amendment process requires a 2/3rds majority. Not exactly easy to go through with.
What I'm attacking here is this radical idea that if a founding father agreed with something, it instantly has merit by virtue of them being founding fathers. It's stupid. Judge the merit of an argument not on whether the founders like it, but instead on its logical and moral merits. - etherreal, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6Spudster, I agree with you. No one should ever follow anything blindly. It should be the responsibility of everyone to understand the Constitution, the Founders, and why they did what they did. I think the Declaration of Independence is the greatest single act of bravery and rightouesness in this nation's history. The Constitution is not a perfect document and the Founders were not perfect men, but it sure is a pretty good place to start.
- nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5What are you saying? The Constitution is a PERFECT DOCUMENT. I worship it. No, I in fact MASTURBATE to it every night before I fall asleep.
- 5xSTUN, on 07/09/2008, -3/+64And, according to Alberto Gonzalez, a rather "quaint" one at that.
- spankr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10He was referring to the Geneva Conventions...
- 5xSTUN, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2You know what, I think you're right... sheesh, that's even worse!
- luke374, on 07/09/2008, -6/+278"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
-U.S. Constitution- SteveCUBE, on 07/09/2008, -2/+195Declaration of Independence*
- luke374, on 07/09/2008, -2/+79Oh duh, thanks.
- MarkEarhart, on 07/09/2008, -1/+17It is overdue.
- Yarmin3, on 07/09/2008, -0/+34It's not only our right, it's our duty!
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." --Declaration of Independence - nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -14/+1That's actually from the Declaration of Independence, and NOT the US Constitution. As of the time of this writing, your inaccurate comment was dugg 141 times.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you DIGG NATION! - AvronC, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5It doesn't matter, as you can clearly ***** see no one is going out with a fight. Where ***** siting at our computers not doing *****. Someone needs to start a ***** revolution and we all know it. Just who the ***** out there has the balls to do it =/
- Modulo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6The original Great Seal of the United States had a phoenix on it. I do not believe that this was a whimsical choice by any means.
- defaria, on 07/09/2008, -10/+0It's be interesting if you did a little bit a ***** research. This is *not* in the Constitution, rather it's in the Declaration of Independence - ya moron!
- iChaz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3the only thing destructive about the constitution is the group of assholes trying to change it.
- PacketScan, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3That Time has come.
- Blue7Alien, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Senate - "But we erased that"
- tehpwnerofn00bs, on 07/09/2008, -1/+101"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams
- burjzyntski, on 07/09/2008, -2/+50I'll drink to that.
- BESTenemy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+39 "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
- Thomas Jefferson
Hold onto your guns and ammo, folks. You might need'em. - mrtrevin, on 07/09/2008, -1/+22"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” -- Ben Franklin
- Spudster, on 07/09/2008, -10/+2I love how in Canada the governmental slogan is famously:
"Peace, order and good government."
Compare that to the revolutionary spirit of the French and American historical figures and you can get an idea of why us Canadian are such calm, harmless people. - esfisher, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7@ Spudster
You'd have to assume there is such a thing as "good government". - DemDude, on 07/09/2008, -0/+12"I'm 'a ***** you up, *****!"
- Samuel L. Jackson - CAisBacK, on 07/10/2008, -3/+0How many people are proud to be citizens of this beautiful
Country of ours, the stripes and the stars for the rights that men have died for to protect,
The women and men who have broke their neck's for the freedom of speech the United States
Government has sworn to uphold, or so we're told"
-Eminem
- sirlancelot88, on 07/09/2008, -37/+2You people know that our laws aren't contained in the Constitution right? They're kept in the United States Code.
- lamiaconfitor, on 07/09/2008, -0/+21That kind of stupidity makes me want to commit violation 1111 of the US federal code, directed specifically to you.
- NeoConSlayer, on 07/09/2008, -0/+33The Constitution is "Fundamental Law", all laws, codes, and regulations must pass constitutional muster or they are null and void. See: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c ...
From the decision: "... Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. ..." - Chassit, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10Wow, the stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze.
- TdiFFRob6876, on 07/09/2008, -0/+38It is just a piece a paper with words and names on it. A lot of people died for its purpose though. That purpose seems forgotten by the people it means to protect. WE are ALL responsible to uphold it as Americans. I know every one of those names did.
- lamiaconfitor, on 07/09/2008, -2/+28The constitution was a 'piece of paper' designed to overcome tyrants who claimed God was on their side. And it is falling to the same.
- holiday, on 07/09/2008, -13/+1werd! :(
- thereisnostate, on 07/09/2008, -12/+16Neocons aren't trying to make the US sucure from terrorists, they are trying to make a police state that will punish anyone who does not bow to neocons and the state of Israel.
- clclark33, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4I see the word neocon and I realize that you must not realize that your liberal "friends" in government only want to enslave us in a government nanny state. There's very little difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. They both tax and spend and we are much worse off for it. The majority of what either party votes for is not specifically allowed by the Constitution (which is a limitation on the federal government to protect the people from oppression). People need to wake up and vote for third party candidates. Personally I vote libertarian, but at this point I don't care who people vote for as long as they don't have D or R next to their names on the ballot.
- flashcat7777, on 07/09/2008, -3/+24That was on the Ron Paul for President Youtube video, it was :)
- yournightmare, on 07/09/2008, -0/+20The framers of the Constitution wrote it so that the federal government would have next to no power over the individual states. They intended for the federal government to have very little influence over how the states conduct themselves, and the main (if only) purpose of the federal government was to provide for the general security and welfare of all the states. The Supreme Court is the entity that opened the door for the federal government's encroachment into the individual states' right to govern themselves, and they did so by first giving themselves the power to decide if laws are unconstitutional or not.
- yournightmare, on 07/09/2008, -0/+13Oh sorry, I forgot to state my point. The point is, the Constitution has been dead, at least in the sense of the way it was originally intended.
- phufufoo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+199/11 was all it took. Everyone became scared lost their minds and chanted war war war. Then their fears and anger was played upon and we have this whole fiasco in the name of security. Or freedom to be safe, except from the government. Its all a bunch of *****.
- nosecohn, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Fear... those most powerful human motivator. Harness it and you can get the people to bow to your will en masse.
- MarkEarhart, on 07/09/2008, -0/+12Revolution, second amendment, forceful armed rebellion.........
- rz8472, on 07/09/2008, -7/+43The List of Democratic Traitors. Ditto on the Republicans -
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)*
*maybe being a potential VP pick wasn't a good idea after all- evo8ftw, on 07/09/2008, -4/+53Obama(D-IL)*
* maybe being a Presidential pick wasn't such a good idea after all. - pckbeta, on 07/09/2008, -0/+25Don't know why you left Obama off that list, I'm a big supporter but this is a ***** move on his part.
- gabrielbeug, on 07/09/2008, -0/+19Yeah, why'd you leave Obama off the list?
- MyExSucks, on 07/10/2008, -0/+13Duh, he left Obama off the list cuz everyone here on digg is so pro-Obama that if anyone ever says anything negative about him, they get castrated on the spot. By the way, ***** Obama.
- lonelily, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Webb said just yesterday said that he doesn't want to be VP because he can be more useful in the Senate. I'm doubting his ability to do any type of government job at this point. I'm embarrassed that I voted for him.
- evo8ftw, on 07/09/2008, -4/+53Obama(D-IL)*
- DrKickflip13, on 07/09/2008, -8/+1Thumbs up for the perfect quote
Thumbs down for your stupid comment attached to it- unclemeat, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2You need to read up on your Bushisms.
- evo8ftw, on 07/09/2008, -10/+4get the quote right or stfu
- dlite922, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3you correct it or STFU!
- STPZ, on 07/09/2008, -0/+29FISA Passed at approximately 2:05 ET with a vote of 69-28
- azaraa09, on 07/09/2008, -0/+25Goodnight, sweet prince.
1776-2008 - lolgamoff, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2it was 1787. ^
nevertheless, this is the one of the saddest days ive known. our beautiful freedom that so many have died to defend is being stripped by people we thought would protect our interests.
- azaraa09, on 07/09/2008, -0/+25Goodnight, sweet prince.
- snapcase, on 07/09/2008, -4/+18God quit ruining the quote. It's:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It's not hard to look it up on wikipedia right before you post. Seriously it takes mere seconds. And if you looked it up you'd also know that Franklin likely never actually said it.
That said, it's a valid point. If only people would ***** understand its meaning then perhaps it could have an impact on the American populace.- RedOctober1992, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4and I'm sure he was paraphrasing, give him a break. Regardless who said actually stated the quote, it has been attributed to Franklin and the general population is going to credit him for it. History's a bitch like that, get over it and stop nitpicking. He got the point across quickly and eloquently, and that's all that matters in this situation. Christ, you watch some History channel and peruse wikipedia for a few minutes and you become an elitist *****. how about that?
- snapcase, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9It's not paraphrasing when there's quotation marks.
- dave122, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Boo Hoo, I misquoted, however I think anyone that understands the quote would also realize that it's the message that's important not nitpicking about who said exactly what.
- CAisBacK, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1The first quote sounds better :)
- homanh, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1The first quote IS better ;)
Things like this evolve slowly over time, which is why there is so much wisdom and insight into text from thousands of years ago [holy book stories are the best example]
- RedOctober1992, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2excellent quote dave122
- RedOctober1992, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1and I'm sure he was paraphrasing, give him a break. Regardless who said actually stated the quote, it has been attributed to Franklin and the general population is going to credit him for it. History's a bitch like that, get over it and stop nitpicking. He got the point across quickly and eloquently, and that's all that matters in this situation. Christ, you watch some History channel and peruse wikipedia for a few minutes and you become an elitist *****. how about that?
- geekee, on 07/09/2008, -12/+2There is no such thing as liberty without security, People who are rational understand that if your safety is at risk, it limits what you can do, and hence your liberty is limited. The purpose of govt. is to protect your individual rights, including your right to life.
- NeoConSlayer, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6WTF? No liberty without security? I'll take care of my "right to life" with my firearms. I sure as hell don't need some govt. a$$hole doing it for me. You're an idiot.
- rv36116, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11Attah boy Obama! Keep up those promises. I'm voting neither of these top douche's.
I refuse to put in more of the same. Wake up Obama supporters, and smell the fascism he's bringing.... Black and Green style! - vidar808, on 07/09/2008, -1/+26Donate to the ACLU. They are suing!
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080 ...- patpl22391, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4The same ACLU who doesn't believe the second amendment is a individual right? Give me a break.
- nosecohn, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1They still believe it's a right, just a "collective" one rather than an individual one. Moreover, they're relatively neutral on the issue of gun control, as they consider it outside their purview. From the ACLU web site:
"In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
- zgress, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6I think the quote is actually
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
still, extremely pertinent - mbraynard, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1Why can't you come up with something original rather than dragging Ben Franklin into your phony, made-up drama about FISA?
- cj485, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1Ben Franklin was sooo wise. What a great mind.
- FLarsen, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Every law is. It needs to be enforced, and sadly, that is not happening.
- Bodhinature, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
-Benjamin Franklin - starmanfalls, on 07/10/2008, -2/+0just a piece of paper. Yeah, hemp paper, which is now against the laws around here.
- slinky317, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1His actual quote wasn't nearly as catchy. Same kinda thing, though.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - mrwoo, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4It's what your country is founded on. It is your country. If people who are in power are going to change what your constitution is what do you do? Well the US constitution is very clear, take up arms and remove those who threaten it.
You can sit around discussing on forums, talk about it in school, chat about it at work, or you can start to rebel.
I'm not an expert on your constitution but i do know that the "founding fathers" were very clear on what you all should do in the event of the government removing your liberties. It's in your second amendment. Somthing about taking up arms?- Jumptees, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Or we can refuse to pay our taxes. Nothing would take the government down faster than lack of funds.
- mihiryouthere, on 07/10/2008, -1/+11776th digg!
- damonic, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson - taank55, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Did anyone care to point out that quote is in Civilization 4 under the Liberalism research?
That game was so awesome.
- Spudster, on 07/09/2008, -91/+4*and created by a bunch of slave owning white men in the days before electricity or mass communication.
- Unicorny, on 07/08/2008, -32/+719Truly a depressing moment when both major party candidates for President are in favor of gutting the Constitution. Especially shameful that Obama lied about his position in order to win the Wisconsin primary and now plays his supporters for dupes.
- apextek, on 07/09/2008, -3/+65clinton was bringing us in that direction, as did G. H. W. Bush and Reagan.
Left or Right we keep getting *****, people are to happy to sit at home, watch reruns and do nothing.
How do we change the course?- apextek, on 07/09/2008, -2/+36BTW I wrote my congressman when this went to vote, (never even got a reply message) They wont care until the majprity of us care. Unfortunately their are still too many people that were shell shocked and brainwashed in the events after 911 that feel loss of liberty is ok in search for security.
- MarkEarhart, on 07/09/2008, -0/+22By forming new militias as described in the second amendment.
- grinchdec23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Don't get digital cable. Turn off the radio AND the tv.
- junkwheel, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4By buying bumper stickers and t-shirts which are 1000% overpriced due to inflation.
By turning off the radio and tv so you don't hear about anything.
By signing an online petition.
By forming an online movement.
NONE of these will do *****. - apextek, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2already there my friend, I download media streams to my network and watch on my modded first gen xbox. I pic my programming and it means I wath a lot less. my programing my way.
only radio I listen too is NPR. - Metasquares, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2The fact is that we can do nothing until the average member of the populace shrugs off his somnolence and rises up in protest.
The simple fact is that most people *don't care* - and probably won't until the issue really hits home for them. - icantdenythis, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1who is ron paul?
- BobOki, on 07/09/2008, -12/+126Sounds like a great time for a certain "crack-pot" Ron Paul to step in and have people actually listen to what he has been saying.
- DanH, on 07/09/2008, -62/+3..or not.
- arobicha, on 07/09/2008, -21/+1You mean the same ***** every other republican's been saying since the founding of the party? Have you actually read his political stance?
- savethehobos, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Read Revolution....then tell me if you think he's no different.
- nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Ron Paul did not vote against FISA. He abstained from voting.
- UnrealMiniMe, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4Yes, but he nevertheless would have voted against it, and he clearly stated his position:
"Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well."
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr06 ...
- ozekii, on 07/09/2008, -5/+40Its in the best interest of the candidates to lie and once they are in power its in their best interest to support this. And everyone thought Obama was for change....I guess they didn't know what change he was for.
- canyoudiggitman, on 07/09/2008, -4/+29Barack Obama - Change you can believe in, if you're real gullible!
- JonGalt, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2That is the most irrational thing i have ever heard. If lying with the prospect of jail or death is in your best interest then you must be a pain worshiper.
Its crazy talk like that which makes the words "self interest" sound like a swear word when it should be the golden standard for how we act. - hivoltage815, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Why would you believe in Obama anyways, he has done nothing to prove himself. What I've been saying all along.
- BESTenemy, on 07/09/2008, -4/+58Once he said he would pull the U.S. out of Iraq. End that war. Now, he's calling for a phased withdrawal.
Once, he opposed innumerable pieces of legislation sent to the Senate by the Bush-Cheney Administration—and which a Republican Congress rubber stamped. Now, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, he voted a bill that granted immunity to telephone companies that violated both established federal law and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution when they voluntarily gave personal data about subscribers to the government.
Once, he said he would accept government restrictions and decline the excessive private contributions that have muddied politics. Now, with a campaign war chest at least two or three times greater than John McCain's, he changed his mind and is taking whatever he can get—and doesn't have to report who gave what.
Barack Obama isn't the only politician to forsake some of his principles for the greater principle—do whatever it takes to get elected.
- Walter M Brasch- JonGalt, on 07/09/2008, -13/+2The fact he said:
"Barack Obama isn't the only politician to forsake some of his principles for the greater principle—do whatever it takes to get elected."
Why I buried you. Even jokingly saying that is a principle is an insult.
- JonGalt, on 07/09/2008, -13/+2The fact he said:
- HardyMachia, on 07/09/2008, -9/+18And the two major parties continue to help Bob Barr's poll numbers.
It's time for Real Change.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/44 ...- CarStan, on 07/09/2008, -11/+3Get over it, he's no Ross Perot, the last candidate with a real chance of breaking the 2 party-system. If you vote for Barr without him having any chance of winning, you just repeat 2000 and not even the lesser evil gets elected. i know Obama is far from being perfect or even the one he wants us to think he is. But do you really want getting 80+year old Mccain become president, maybe even with religious headnut Huckabee as VP and replacement president? Just because you realized the two party system sucks?
- CarStan, on 07/09/2008, -12/+2Don't get me wrong. I encourage you to campaign for him and try to convince as many people as you can. But when election day comes and the polls make it absolutely clear that Barr has no chance of getting any electoral vote at all, then please think twice before voting for him.
(Asuming you planned to vote for Obama of course. If you would vote for Mccain otherwise, go ahead and vote for Barr. lol i'm a hypocrite) - nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Didn't Bob Barr vote for the Patriot Act? No friend to the constitution there.
- clclark33, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5@CarStan:
It's exactly that mindset that has kept us in the two party system and prevents us from having any true choices in elections. You never waste your vote when you vote your conscience. You betray yourself and your country when you vote for the "lesser of two evils" or any other rationalization. I understand people have a subconscious desire to have voted for a winner, but sometimes you lose. Don't be afraid to say you voted for a losing candidate as long as you voted your conscience.
@ nedzeve:
Barr's political stance has changed since then. If I recall correctly, he's come out against the Patriot Act and recognizes that it was a mistake and the government has abused its power far too much. - soccaparker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0you know who he looks exactly like?
http://filmonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/jk- ...
- MarkEarhart, on 07/09/2008, -1/+26What is so difficult to grasp about the word "revolution?"
- robbiemuffin, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1nothing. in fact, they've branded it. My neighbors have the McDonald's brand of revolution, but I prefer the TastyKreme brand.
- kittnerrules, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Whatchu got in mind Mark?
- diggmaddy, on 07/09/2008, -4/+10Actually, preparations for this have been going on since (or even before) JFKs assassination. He was the guy who wanted to get rid of this 200 year evil master plan, but it's very unfortunate that it cost him his life :(.
- FreckleEars, on 07/09/2008, -3/+12You poor poor folks in the United States. I truly agree that your current government officials (as well as ours in Canada) are a bunch or money and power mongrels, who intent to rip all of our rights away before we can do anything about it! Democracy... HA!
- 9bpm9, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7All candidates lie........
- starmanfalls, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1we all know that blah blah blah. you lie also.
- STPZ, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8FISA Passed at approximately 2:05 ET with a vote of 69-28
- chakan2, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2So did Obama vote yes? (I was hoping against all hope he'd change his mind and vote No at the last minute).
- chakan2, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Nevermind, I just found the actual voting record. Obama did indeed vote yes...***** him and ***** congress. I was so excited that maybe, just maybe we'd get out of this quagmire of ***** we call America today...alas it's not to be...
- chakan2, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Oh one more nugget...I hate life right now...Clinton voted against the bill...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
- vidar808, on 07/09/2008, -0/+13Donate to the ACLU. They are suing!
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080 ... - juk3box, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2why is it taking our people so long to respond to these crimes? Oh hell, this is probably just a rhetorical question. We might as well just come to an agreement that the US Constitution is dead. The United States as we know it (or knew it) is dead. Dollar hegemoney is coming to an end as Saudi Arabia and OPEC nations are seriously considering accepting other currencies for their oil. The housing bubble that was caused by the Fed under Greenspan is draining wealth away from a lot of people. The savings rate went negative. The bankruptcy laws were changed in fall of 2006 to make it more difficult to declare bankruptcy. The military is demoralized and overstreched. Both congress and the president have very low approval ratings. Various polls have confirmed that americans think the media focuses on trivialities and the people are not given what they ask for with the news media. The information services are business failures since they could not accurately report on things like foreign policy and Greenspan's housing bubble......and on and on and on.
If this doesn't justify revolution I don't know what does. - styleomatic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1".... truly a depressing moment....." my ass, this is an outrage.
- Deist4Life, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Obama is no different than every other American politician. He says what he needs to, in order to get votes and further his political agenda.
- apextek, on 07/09/2008, -3/+65clinton was bringing us in that direction, as did G. H. W. Bush and Reagan.
- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/08/2008, -210/+683Ive really had a great time laughing at the O'BombAIPAC sheeple who thought that he was any different or something. Fact is, just like McWarmonger, they are both bilderberg shills, purposely contrasted to give the illusion of choice. They are both taking orders straight from their globalist masters, carefully orchestrating the moves of both to fool the masses still sucking at the teat of the MSM
There is ONE candidate left who represents the Constitution, and His name is Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul. Despite what the MSM has tried to brainwash you with, HE IS STILL IN THE RACE.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4155.html
THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SAY I DIDN'T DO MY PART FOR FREEDOM- DrDreyfus, on 07/08/2008, -74/+43BUT THEY WILL SAY YOU'RE A TOOL
- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -29/+17LMAO as if i havent dealt with some globalist boot lickers before. These same ***** labeled me 'mentally ill' and had me in a asylum until i was 18. i've felt the affects of the pills they give you for 'your own health'
never again.
next time they just wont be asking though. but ill be ready
ive said too much... - dafragsta, on 07/09/2008, -3/+17It's so much easier to make off the cuff remarks about people you disagree with, rather than trying to find out if they are right. I've been screaming that Obama is a Bilderberger for the past month, and I have NO political affiliation in a party sense. I just want my ***** civil liberties back and no more fiat money.
- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -29/+17LMAO as if i havent dealt with some globalist boot lickers before. These same ***** labeled me 'mentally ill' and had me in a asylum until i was 18. i've felt the affects of the pills they give you for 'your own health'
- why3th, on 07/08/2008, -57/+21Everyone's in on it! The globalists have us by the balls! The candidates, see, are set up to give the illusion of choice. It's the biggest scam ever, and the wool is over your eyes, you sheeple. BUT, we have Ron EARNEST Paul. Dr. Ron Earnest Paul is the lone person that stands against the globalists. See, they can rig the elections, control the MSM, manipulate politics, and dominate our lives. However, the one thing they can't do is keep DR. RON EARNEST PAUL out of congress.
/sarcasm.- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/08/2008, -12/+18Continue to laugh, but your globalist boot licking isn't going to gain you any favor when they start rounding up the american sheeple like yourself.
It's not to late to fight the NWO, and save your eternal soul at the same time. - Whitehat51, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1No one likes you, loser. Ron Paul is the best candidate, as he always has been. I bet you are enough of a dumbass that you support some ***** candidate like McCain.
- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/08/2008, -12/+18Continue to laugh, but your globalist boot licking isn't going to gain you any favor when they start rounding up the american sheeple like yourself.
- joe39275, on 07/09/2008, -29/+118There is no conspiracy, many politicians legitimately think they are doing the right thing. I'm one of the biggest RP supporters out there, but conspiracy theorists like you ruin his image. You guilty of as much fearmongering as the politicians. I wish all people would start being realistic instead of always going to extremes and scare people into doing or believing what they say.
- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -38/+15a REAL ron paul supporter wouldnt be swallowing and vomiting the zionist MSM talking points like you are.
dont think the globalists dont have shills posing as supporters in the r[LOVE]ution. Like our friend joe here... - lamiaconfitor, on 07/09/2008, -12/+20Dammit, you are all idiots.
- delmar14, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Fear is the path to the dark side...
- djnack, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Well put.
- bullhead2007, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5If you don't think there are globalists trying to run the world, then you should try to do some research. It's not like they're secretive about their goals of one world currency, and global corporations.
- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -38/+15a REAL ron paul supporter wouldnt be swallowing and vomiting the zionist MSM talking points like you are.
- mishabear, on 07/09/2008, -14/+59Belittling others does little to sway people your way. Instead of reaching them, you are alienating them. I'd never hire you for marketing.
Because of dumbasses like you, Ron Paul loses votes. Good job, Einstein!- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -22/+6LOLOLOLOL as if id hide the truth and pull punches just because it isnt considered 'nice'.
most will find out eventually, even if its when the NWO stormtroopers are rounding them up
some, like our friend misha here, will be sucking at their teat even while theyre being tossed in the fire... - Monk22, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1it ahs nothing to do with hiding the truth. he was speaking about forming an argument not just insulting everyone. why do you think bush is sitting in office again, i would say largely becuase the hard core libs are dicks and ill never help you.
- ProfessorFoo, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7That is all any Ron Paul supporter here does. All I hear about is how he is some sort of god who will save the country by defending the constitution and of course the Ron Paul sheep get worked up and log on to 10 different accounts to digg him up over and over again. Yes, he wants to shrink the government and support his interpretation of the constitution. That doesn't make him right or a good candidate.
And the biggest reason I don't like him is that he tried to pass a federal ban on abortion. That is probably one of the most terrible things I have ever heard of. - randomsniper, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1ProfessorFooProfessorFoo said this:
And the biggest reason I don't like him is that he tried to pass a federal ban on abortion. That is probably one of the most terrible things I have ever heard of.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The most terrible thing you'll ever hear is your top 3 vertebraes snapping under the stasi boot thats coming to a town near you, soon.
If a single post on a random website determines your vote you have nominated yourself as automatron of the year. - dagnome1984, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3"And the biggest reason I don't like him is that he tried to pass a federal ban on abortion. That is probably one of the most terrible things I have ever heard of." Please cite evidence.
- AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -22/+6LOLOLOLOL as if id hide the truth and pull punches just because it isnt considered 'nice'.
- centerblack, on 07/09/2008, -36/+19Well Ron Paul is a nut. He has some good points, but building border fences and reversing Roe vs Wade aren't something I'm looking to do.
If our population was better educated and had less bible thumping religious morons then I could be in favor of *absolute* states rights. The fact of the matter is that our population doesn't compare with the population of 13 colonies who just fought a WAR, with blood shed in their towns, fields and homes.
As it stands we've had a ruling class for a while and they really are herding the sheep. If you want to "fix" the country, start by investing in education. Make college / higher education mandatory.- Joet1980, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3http://youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg
- dafragsta, on 07/09/2008, -4/+7You are a moron. Ron Paul is NOT a Bible thumper. He is all about separation of church and state.
- wiggles, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Replacing tyrrany of the few with tyrrany of the majority is not a solution. Tyrrany must be replaced with Liberty.
- Chassit, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9Make higher education mandatory? So much for freedom.
- cyborg, on 07/09/2008, -2/+24One more year till I could vote.
Sadly, that'll be too late.- BlackCow, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I am missing it by a month!
- DigDugDigger, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14Hey think bout it this way, you'll be old enough to be drafted by McCain to go fight the "Al-Qaeda in Iran" :P
- dilibau, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5you're a cyborg, your kin does not have the Constitutional right to vote. Now repeat the first rule of robotics, as stated by our founding father Isaac Asimov
- kHealy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Me too! Ugh!
- dlite922, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2same here....Dang it!
- slodojo, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Don't worry, it's not like your vote would make a difference. :-)
- Whitehat51, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Yeah, it would, dumbass. That's the problem with all of you bitching little teenagers on this website. All you do is whine and complain about the government, but do you do anything about it? No! You sit on your fat ass all day drinking soda and eating fast food on your laptop while the people of the country suffer from this *****.
- jjohnstn, on 07/09/2008, -11/+81Someone needs to tell Ron Paul he's still in the race:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5old news - the de jure Campaign knows about the de facto campaign, and has for many months
- theOster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+15i don't care - i'm writing him in because i think he's the most qualified candidate. i don't care who you vote for, but please, please, please....vote only for who *you* think should win. don't vote how anyone else wants you to.
- nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5Go ahead, write him in. But if your sole criteria for support Paul is FISA, it should shock you that Paul wasn't bothered to vote against it when the bill was on his lap.
http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_fails_to_show_up ... - Whitehat51, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0It's kind of odd; in that message he spoke very cryptically about the "revolution" and his plans and projects to move it forwards. What do you think he meant?
- theOster, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2my primary concern is breaking up the federal government and moving more responsibility to the state level.
- 0nslaught, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2" ... shock you that Paul wasn't bothered to vote against it when the bill was on his lap."
nedzeve, are you intentionally providing inaccurate information, or just ignorant?
Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr06 ...
- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -24/+14Ron Paul Nation gets knocked down,
but Ron Paul Nation gets back up again,
they're never gonna keep Ron Paul Nation down!- BadseedJR, on 07/09/2008, -5/+12Thanks for getting that ***** gay song in my head.
- skyroket, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Chumbawumba lolz
- mbonnin, on 07/09/2008, -3/+25Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
- goosegoosegoose, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1YES!
- IpecacNeat, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I Voted For Kodos was a good ska/punk band.
- Samurai77, on 07/09/2008, -13/+26Two Words....Ron Paul!
- nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -3/+45 more words: Did not vote against FISA!
- 0nslaught, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr06 ...
- DoscoJones, on 07/09/2008, -28/+23RP says he isn't in the race. You say he is. Hmm, who to believe, who to believe...
You're a farking nut job. Go take your meds and have a lie down.- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4the de jure Campaign knows about the de facto campaign, and has for many months
listen carefully to what he says - all of what he says - remember, you will not hear typical politician speak
it's believe the TV or not
- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4the de jure Campaign knows about the de facto campaign, and has for many months
- peen, on 07/09/2008, -10/+4Stop it.
You're wrong. - snoop396, on 07/09/2008, -20/+13COLBERT 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- llbbl, on 07/09/2008, -13/+7give it up already
- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5when did George Washington give it up?
- Spymodhf, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2never. never let it down either.
- slambert90, on 07/09/2008, -6/+8If Ron Paul really thought he had a chance at becoming the GOP nominee, he wouldn't have suspended his campaign, and would have continued to actively campaign for more support. The media forgot about him long ago and unless he has some insane 'tricks' up his sleeve for the Convention, he's not going anywhere. Doesn't Romney, who also suspended his campaign weeks before Paul did, still have more delegates than Ron Paul? So, even if McCain croaks before the RNC, Ron Paul will still won't get the nomination. He's a good candidate, but he has no chance this election year, you'd have a better chance at getting Charles Baldwin in office.
- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4the de jure Campaign knows about the de facto campaign, and has for many months
listen carefully to what RP says - all of what he says - remember, you will not hear the typical politician speak
and contrary to what the TV would have us believe, no Convention Delegate has voted yet...
- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4the de jure Campaign knows about the de facto campaign, and has for many months
- HardyMachia, on 07/09/2008, -10/+3Paul isn't in the race any longer.
Go check out Bob Barr. http://www.BobBarr2008.com- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5the de jure Campaign knows about the de facto RP campaign, and has for many months
listen carefully to what RP says - all of what he says - remember, you will not hear the typical politician speak
and contrary to what the TV would have us believe, no Convention Delegate has voted yet...don't stop Ron Paul
- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5the de jure Campaign knows about the de facto RP campaign, and has for many months
- Buddhaismybuddy, on 07/09/2008, -13/+4Lol, I swear Paul supporters are worse then Nader and Kucinich supporters combined. Seriously man, it's over, Ron Paul is not going to win.
- pendragon304, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4really? can u provide the name of just one Convention Delegate that has voted?
- HypocriteDigg, on 07/09/2008, -5/+8Kucinich!!! Is Ron Paul trying to bring any of the current administration to justice?
- AmerPatriot55, on 07/09/2008, -3/+7The ONLY 2 people in Congress, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich CAN'T do it by themselves, DUH! Why don't you people WAKE UP and vote ALL INCUMBANTS OUT of Congress, or do you actually believe they are representing you?
Most Congress members and MSM are bought and paid for by the GLOBAL CORPORATIONS, aka, CRF, BILDERBERG, TRILATERAL One World Government Satan Worshippers! Get a clue!
Ron Paul suspended his campaign because he understands that Main Stream Media is also part of this and they have done everything in their power to belittle, ignore and laugh at him, so he's decided the best thing he can possibly do at this point is to TRY to EDUCATE people on the way ou
- AmerPatriot55, on 07/09/2008, -3/+7The ONLY 2 people in Congress, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich CAN'T do it by themselves, DUH! Why don't you people WAKE UP and vote ALL INCUMBANTS OUT of Congress, or do you actually believe they are representing you?
- DrDreyfus, on 07/08/2008, -74/+43BUT THEY WILL SAY YOU'RE A TOOL
